ERIC EJ987611: Challenges and Sustainability Practices of Frontier Schools in Montana

2011·0.34 MB·English

by  ERIC

Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

Challenges and Sustainability Practices of Frontier Schools in Montana

Claudette Morton
Montana Small Schools Alliance

Hobart L. Harmon
Independent Consultant

This article reports the findings of a study commissioned by the Montana Small Schools Alliance to explore the
challenges and sustainability practices of frontier schools. A Montana frontier school is defined as a school district
with 200 or fewer students with its attendant community located in a county with five or fewer people per square
mile. The researchers surveyed teachers, administrators, and school board chairs in 141 frontier school districts
and held six focus groups of community members. The top five most important challenges noted by school district
personnel were low student enrollment, inadequate financial resources, unrealistic federal expectations,
academically unmotivated students, and mixed grade levels of students in the classroom. School sustainability
practices included operating mixed-age or multi-grade classrooms and using school facilities to serve critical
community functions. Lay citizens, compared to persons employed by the school district, were more likely to view
the school as necessary for maintaining a way of life associated with agriculture and related enterprises. Twelve
research questions are offered for future research on issues of frontier schools.

Keywords: Montana schools; rural schools; rural education; school districts; boards of education; teaching
conditions; sustainability.

Educational leaders facing declining student sustainability practices of Montana frontier school
populations and dwindling budgets are once again districts.
struggling with the issue of how to sustain small
schools in rural communities (Powers, 2009; Ross, Challenges Rural Schools Face
2011). With financial support of The Oro Y Plata
Foundation, the Montana Small Schools Alliance
The challenges facing rural schools impact all
(MSSA) established the Frontier Schools Project to
states across the country. For example, Allen and
increase understanding about, and to provide
Sloan (2005) reported funding small schools is
assistance to, the small rural schools and their
becoming a pressing issue in Maine because of
communities in the most remote places of the state.
numerous factors, including state and federal
As an essential first step the MSSA sought to
accountability laws and declining enrollments.
understand the challenges and sustainability practices
Challenges facing Maine’s small rural schools
of this important element of public education in
include attracting and retaining qualified teachers,
Montana. The rationale was that profiling the unique
including specialty teachers such as music teachers,
challenges facing these small “frontier” schools could
nurses, and science teachers; increasing proportions
enable MSSA and other organizations, as well as
of students living in poverty, and declining
state and federal agencies, to develop possible
availability of trained special education staff for
solutions to the challenges and provide supportive
students with severe, low-incidence disabilities.
assistance.
Declining student populations, combined with
A further consideration was that revealing facts
instances of lower test scores and problems with
about frontier schools and their communities in
teacher retention, have caused Midwestern states to
Montana may also begin to inform urban-minded
revisit the question of whether further school
myths and fill an important void in the education
consolidations — either through mandates or
literature about the circumstances of such schools
incentives — need to be considered as part of the
that serve a necessary role in rural America. This
solution to providing quality education for students in
article reports the findings of surveys and focus
the 21st century (Kliewer, 2001). In California, the
group research to identify the challenges and
1
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

economic crisis threatens the sustainability of small the characteristics that current education reformers
rural schools, particularly the one-room schoolhouses seek to implement, such as a smaller and more
(The Associated Press, 2009). Minnesota researchers personalized learning environment for each student,
(Williams, Nierengarten, Munson, Riordan, & better connections between the school and parents of
Corbett, 2009) noted proposed solutions to address students, and a focused curriculum that integrates
economic issues in rural districts have included academic and practical learning.
mandates to consolidate, collaborate and cooperate.
Howley, Johnson, and Petrie (2011) pointed out, Defining Frontier Schools
however, that the extent of consolidation varies
across states due to their considerable differences in A workable definition of rural schools on the
history, geography, population density, and politics. “frontier” has been elusive for educators and
These authors emphasize “contemporary research researchers. However, when the federal government
does not support claims about the widespread added the Small, Rural School Achievement Program
benefits of consolidation. The assumptions behind to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it
such claims are most often dangerous created a definition for allocating funds to small rural
oversimplifications” (p. 3). school districts. Eligible for funds were school
Numerous researchers and authors have districts of 600 or fewer students in a county with a
investigated and/or described the challenges rural population density of fewer than 10 persons per
schools face (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010; square mile and a U.S. Department of Education
Broton, Mueller, Schultz, & Gaona, 2009; Brown & rural local code of 7 or 8 (US Department of
Swanson, 2003; Harmon, 2003; Stephens, 1998) and Education, 2002). In the western part of the United
the close relationship between a rural school and its States, however, such a definition of rural may be too
community (Beaulieu & Gibbs, 2005; Chance & inclusive. In Montana, for example, the definition
Cummins 1988; Gjelten, 1982; Harmon & Schafft, included the majority of school districts in the state
2009; Lyson, 2002; Miller, 1993; Scafft & Harmon, (McCulloch, 2008). Determining a more accurate
2010). But little is known about the smallest of the operational definition proved to be the first challenge
small rural schools, the “frontier schools” serving the in researching schools on the Montana frontier.
most isolated of rural communities across the United MSSA project investigators decided on the term
States. “frontier” to identify the small schools and
communities that are actually a sub-group of rural
Frontier Schools America. Frontier schools exist in places that are
exceptionally remote, particularly in comparison to
Approximately 10 years ago, Howley and most rural schools in the eastern United States.
Harmon (2000a) reported that more than 1,000 Although a review of literature in the Education
school districts with 200 or fewer students remained Resources Information Center (ERIC) system
in rural areas of the United States. Generally, contained considerable information on one-room
compared to other locales, a larger percentage of schools, no documents discussed the modern frontier
students in rural America are enrolled in very small school. An Internet search revealed that The
public schools (Provasnik et al., 2007). At the National Center for Frontier Communities (NCFC)
elementary level, the percentage of students in rural based in Ojo Sarco, New Mexico claims it is “the
areas attending public schools with an enrollment only national organization dedicated to the smallest
below 200 (10.4%) was about three times as large as and most geographically isolated communities in the
the percentage in towns (3.4%), about 7 times as United States - the Frontier” (para #1, home page).
large as the percentage in cities (1.5%), and about 10 In 1997, NCFC used a methodology from the
times as large as the percentage in suburbs (1%). At National Institutes of Health and convened a group of
the secondary level, similar differences existed, with rural health professionals to read background papers
the percentage of students in rural areas attending and develop a scale of “frontierness” rather than a
public schools with enrollments of less than 200 (9%) specific definition. The group weighed three factors.
more than three times larger than the percentages in The first was density or persons per square mile; the
cities, suburbs, and towns (ranging from 1 to 2%). second was distance to a market or service center,
Educational historians might view small rural and the third was the time it took to drive to the
schools as remnants of the “one-room” or “country” nearest market or service center. While relevant, the
school (Gaither, 2003; Fuller, 1982). Researchers matrix was not satisfactory for the Montana frontier
might view them as outliers or anomalies that seldom schools project because of the sliding scale features.
fit “normal” schools today (DeYoung, 1991; Consequently, the researchers considered various
DeYoung 1987). Yet, these schools possess many of Montana features of frontier and created an
2
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

operational definition for the MSSA project. A the fall of 2008 and slight modifications made to
Montana frontier school was defined as a school clarify selected questions. The survey contained 20
district with 200 or fewer students and its attendant questions, including demographic information,
community located in a county with five or fewer current school district challenges, and practices that
people per square mile. The 200-student maximum may contribute to the sustainability of the school.
defined a much smaller school district than the School and district personnel were asked to indicate
federal definition of 600 students developed for the (a) what they perceived were the major challenges to
Small, Rural School Achievement Program. The the district, and (b) to explain the first, second and
determination of remoteness embraced a county with third most important challenges. A challenge was
five or fewer persons per square mile. Because the defined as a pressing issue at the current time.
school-aged population in Montana makes up 20% of School board chairs were asked to indicate in order of
the general population (Montana Department of importance the three greatest challenges facing the
Commerce, 2008), a county with five people per school district at the current time. Using a rating
square mile would on average have only one student scale of not important, somewhat important,
per square mile. important, very important, and extremely important,
In Montana, 42 of the 56 counties have fewer school district personnel and school board chairs
than five people per square mile (CEIS-Montana, were asked to rate the importance of eight factors in
July 2008). Consequently, this became the defined sustaining small rural public school(s) in the school
geographic area for the MSSA Frontier Schools district.
project. A review of 2008 student enrollment data
from the Montana Office of Public Instruction Procedures
(McCulloch, 2008) and the list of school districts in
the five Montana Regional Service Areas revealed In phase one, the Montana Small Schools
141 districts that enrolled 200 or fewer students in the Alliance office administered the survey to frontier
42 counties. school district personnel who participated in MSSA
Although many small schools in remote Montana professional development workshop sessions in
areas offer a learning environment that larger schools February and March, 2009. In phase two in January
in urban areas find almost impossible to emulate, 2010, using Survey Monkey the same instrument was
these isolated schools face many challenges that posted on the MSSA web site to solicit responses
jeopardize their future success and even their from personnel (i.e., teachers and administrators) in
existence. The primary purpose of the study was to the frontier school districts who had not participated
describe the challenges confronting small rural in the workshops. A similar paper and pencil survey
“frontier” schools in Montana and the practices that was also developed for completion by school board
contribute to their sustainability. The study provided chairs of each frontier school district. The MSSA
an opportunity for those most involved in frontier office mailed the survey in January 2010, with a
schools -- teachers, administrators, school board timeline of one month to respond, to the 141 school
chairs, and community supporters (i.e., lay citizens) board chairs in the target group.
to provide their perceptions of challenges and As a follow-up effort to solicit additional surveys
sustainability practices of frontier schools. from non-respondents to the web and mailed surveys,
county superintendents and regional service center
Methods directors were asked to disseminate information
about the study and to encourage response. A total of
The study used a mixed-methods approach that 237 school district personnel (92 MSSA workshop
included initial surveys and follow-up focus groups. participants and 145 web survey participants)
The study was conducted in two phases from completed the surveys. Ensuring confidentiality for
February 2009 to April 2010. A total of 141 frontier
teachers and others in small schools was a prime
school districts in 42 Montana counties comprised the
concern for the researchers. Web-participants were
target population for the study.
requested to provide their school district’s four digit

legal identity code as an identifier. As most
Instrument
respondents were unable to provide this code, it was

impossible to calculate a response rate for the survey
Surveys for school district personnel and school
population of teachers and administrators; however, it
board chairs were developed from a survey of K-12
was estimated at between 40 -60 % of the target
unit schools in the United States designed by Howley
population. The chairs of 57 school boards (40%)
and Harmon (2000a). The survey was pilot tested
completed the paper and pencil survey.
over a two-month period with four school districts in
3
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

Focus Group Participants http://mtsmallschools.org/pdf/Montana%20Frontier%
20Schools.pdf
Additionally, workshop, web, and school board
chair survey respondents were asked to provide the Respondent Characteristics
names and phone numbers of two community
members (i.e., lay citizens) not employed by the Of the 237 respondents who were employed by
school district who were strong advocates of the school districts, 218 indicated their primary position
school and knew its value to the community or area of responsibility in the school district. Forty-two
the school served. These persons were defined as (19.3%) of these 218 respondents indicated county
“local supporters” of the frontier school in their superintendent as their primary position of
communities and made up the list of 202 potential responsibility in the school district. Twenty-seven
focus group members, 60 of whom agreed to (12.4%) respondents indicated District
participate in a focus group. In phase two, the Superintendent/Lead Teacher. Only six (2.8%)
researchers conducted six focus groups across the respondents indicated they served as District
state of Montana with 49 of the 60 “local supporters” Superintendent and School Principal, while 98
of the frontier schools. A focus group protocol was (45.0%) respondents indicated District Supervising
developed by the researchers to guide focus group Teacher. Forty-six (19.7%) respondents were
sessions. One researcher facilitated the protocol employed as Teachers, and two (0.9%) were
(consultant) while the second researcher (MSSA employed as Clerks (business managers). In
director) served as note taker. The focus group Montana, there are still K-8 districts with a Board of
sessions were conducted in March and April of 2010 Trustees of three and a District Supervising Teacher,
in restaurants at a regional location convenient to who is a classroom teacher with additional duties that
invited participants. Sessions were held from 6 pm to in a larger district would be assigned to a principal.
8:30 pm with dinner provided. Focus group sessions The county superintendent is the superintendent of
were recorded, with written transcriptions produced record for these small K-8 schools with no other
by an experienced court reporter. administrator.
Of the 237 respondents, 220 indicated the type of
school district in which they were employed. One
Data Analysis
hundred and forty-two respondents (64.5%) were

employed in K-8 districts; 44 respondents (20%)
Data from surveys were entered into the
were employed in K-12 school districts comprised of
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS
only one school in district, and 34 respondents
11.5 Windows) for analysis. Demographic
(15.5%) were employed in K-12 school districts that
characteristics were profiled. First, major challenges
had more than one school in the district. Just over
of the school districts were analyzed, followed by an
40.5% of employees had held their current position
analysis of practices that contributed to the
for more than five years.
sustainability of frontier schools. A Cronbach alpha
Agriculture was the most prevalent type of
reliability procedure was conducted on the scale of
economic base in more than four-fifths (85.4%) of
importance ratings for the eight sustainability reasons
districts, followed by mixed economies,
in the school district personnel survey (.816) and the
government services, and recreation and tourism.
school board chair survey (.709).
Manufacturing and retirement were indicated least
The researchers analyzed the focus group
frequently as the prevalent type of economic base
transcriptions as well as the notes taken by the one
in the school district.
researcher at each focus group session. Themes

regarding the frontier school as critical to a way of
District Student Population
life were identified.

Several questions on the survey asked the
Findings
participants to describe the school district’s student

population. Of the 221 respondents, 60 (27.1%)
Highlights of respondent characteristics, school
indicated a district enrollment of less than 10
challenges, and sustainability practices and reasons
students; over half (53.3%) specified district
are presented. A copy of the full report, Frontier
enrolment of 30 or fewer students and more than two-
Schools in Montana: Challenges and Sustainability
thirds (76.8%) worked in districts that enrolled 75 or
Practices: A Research Report, is available from the
fewer students. Fifty-eight (29.1%) respondents
Montana Small Schools Alliance web site at
indicated that more than 50% of the students in the
district were eligible for the federal free and/or
4
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

reduced lunch program. Forty-eight (24.1%) Major District Challenges
respondents reported no students eligible for free and
or reduced lunch. However, it is possible that in Personnel employed by the school district were
many of these small frontier schools the respondent asked to indicate what they perceived were the major
did not know if students were eligible for free and/or challenges of the district. A challenge was defined as
reduced lunch because most of the schools do not a pressing issue at the current time (Table 1).
offer a lunch program. Many frontier schools do not
have a kitchen or a lunch facility.

Table 1

District Challenges Noted by School District Personnel
No. of
Challenge Respondents %
1. Low student enrollment 137 57.8
2. Unrealistic federal regulations 119 50.2
3. Inadequate financial resources 116 48.9
4. Mixed grade levels of students in classroom 78 32.9
5. Difficulty recruiting qualified teacher(s) 78 32.9
6. Difficulty retaining teachers 76 32.1
7. Unrealistic state regulations 66 27.8
8. Unmotivated students academically 65 27.4
9. Threats of school consolidation or closure 57 24.1
10. Needs of special education students 53 22.4
11. Inadequate parent involvement 52 21.9
12. Antiquated school facilities 45 19.0
13. Providing teacher professional development opportunities 38 16.0
14. Low student achievement 33 14.0
15. Inadequate community support 29 12.2
16. Inappropriate student behavior 27 11.4
17. Lack of student support services 25 10.5
18. Inadequate distance learning technology (e.g., Internet connectivity) 21 8.9
19. Inadequate curriculum/course offerings 22 9.3
20. Inadequate number of support staff 22 9.3
21. Student use of alcohol 14 5.9
22. Meeting teacher certification requirements 13 5.5
23. Other 13 5.5
24. Student use of illegal drugs 6 2.5

The challenge noted by the highest percentage of meeting teacher certification requirements (5.5%),
respondents was low student enrollment (57.8%), student use of alcohol (5.9%), inadequate distance
followed by unrealistic federal regulations (50.2%), learning technology (e.g., Internet connectivity)
inadequate financial resources (48.9%), mixed grade (8.9%), inadequate curriculum/course offerings
levels of students in classroom (32.9%), and difficulty (9.3%), and, inadequate number of support staff
recruiting qualified teacher(s) (32.9%). (9.3%).
The challenges respondents noted least
frequently were student use of illegal drugs (2.5%),

5
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

Most Important District Challenges what they perceived were the “most important,
“second most important” and “third most important”
After indicating the major challenges faced by challenges in the school district (Table 2).
the school district, respondents were asked to specify

Table 2

Five Most Important Challenges Identified by School District Respondents
Major Challenge No. of %
Respondents
Low student enrollment 60 28.3
Inadequate financial resources 20 9.4
Unrealistic federal expectations 20 9.4
Academically unmotivated students 10 4.7
Mixed grade levels of students in the classroom 9 4.2

Respondents were asked to explain their district. Statements reflected the inability of
reason for indicating a challenge as the most students to see relevance in what they were
important. Sixty-five of the respondents who learning, student unwillingness to extend enough
indicated that low student enrollment was the most effort to succeed academically, and/or a general
important challenge provided an explanation. Most lack of student responsibility and motivation.
statements reflected the issue of how declining or Nine respondents provided statements to
low numbers of students translated into less explain why the item, mixed-grade levels of
funding, elimination of staff, and possible school students in classroom, was the most important
consolidation or closure. challenge for the school district. Generally,
Fifty-seven respondents provided statements to statements reflected how the multi-grade classroom
explain why the item, inadequate financial situation placed constraints on the teacher’s time to
resources, was the most important challenge for work with individual students in specific grades to
the school district. Statements reflected the impact meet expected learning standards.
of financial resources on instructional materials, School board chairs were asked to indicate
facilities repair, teacher salaries, special education their perceptions of the three greatest challenges
services, teacher recruitment and retention, linkage (most pressing issues) in order of importance that
of student enrollment to state funding, and ability currently existed in the school district (see Table
to offer necessary programs for all students. 3). Low student enrollment was noted as the
Nineteen respondents provided statements to greatest challenge by the highest percentage of
explain why, unrealistic federal expectations was the respondents (n=20, 35.1%), followed by
most important challenge for the school district. inadequate financial resources (n=14, 24.6%), and
Statements reflected unrealistic expectations of unrealistic federal regulations (n=9, 15.8%).
federal mandates because of small student These same three challenges were also identified as
enrollments, limited time for teachers to complete the second greatest challenge by 12.7% of
paperwork, an overemphasis on testing as the sole respondents. A slightly lower percentage of board
measure of student performance, inadequate federal chairs noted unrealistic state regulations (10.9%)
funding to support implementing requirements of and threats of school consolidation or closure
regulations, and a general preference for local control (10.5%) as the second greatest challenge. With
in school decision making. regard to the third greatest challenge, board chairs
Ten respondents provided statements to noted most frequently unrealistic federal
explain why academically unmotivated students regulations (21.6%) and threats of school
was the most important challenge of the school consolidation or closure (21.6%).

6
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

Table 3

Greatest, Second Greatest, and Third Greatest Challenges Noted by Board Chairs
Greatest Second Greatest Third Greatest
Challenge Challenge Challenge
District Challenge

No. % No. % No. %

1. Low student enrollment 20 35.1 7 12.7 2 3.9
2. Inadequate financial resources 14 24.6 7 12.7 1 2.0
3. Unrealistic federal regulations 9 15.8 7 12.7 11 21.6
4. Difficulty recruiting qualified teacher(s) 4 7.0 3 5.3 4 7.8
5. Unrealistic state regulations 3 5.3 6 10.9 7 13.7
6. Threats of school consolidation or Closure 1 1.8 6 10.5 11 21.6
7. Difficulty retaining teachers 1 1.8 4 7.0 2 3.9
8. Antiquated school facilities 1 1.8 2 3.5 1 2.0
9. Inadequate distance learning technology (e.g.,
Internet connectivity) 1 2 3.5 2 3.9
10. Unmotivated students academically 1 1.8 1 1.8 1 2.0
11. Inadequate parent involvement 1 1.8 0 0 0 0
12. Inadequate curriculum/course offerings 1 1.8 0 0 0 0
13. Needs of special education students 0 0 5 9.1 2 3.9
14. Mixed grade levels of students in Classroom 0 0 2 3.6 1 2.0
15. Low student achievement 0 0 1 1.8 2 3.9
16. Providing teacher professional development
opportunities 0 0 1 1.8 1 2.0
17. Inappropriate student behavior 0 0 1 1.8 0 0
18. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 2 3.9
19. Meeting teacher certification Requirements 0 0 0 0 1 2.0
20. Lack of student support services 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 57 100.0 55 100.0 51 100.0

Sustainability Practices school sustainability in the district. The second most
commonly identified sustainability practice was
School district personnel were asked to indicate Created partnerships with other districts (n=74,
if selected practices contributed to school 31.2%), followed by Employed teacher(s) with
sustainability in the district. These practices were multiple endorsements (n=73, 30.9%), Passed local
grouped into four categories: (1) general operations, levy (n=72, 30.4%), and Promoted reputation of
(2) staffing, (3) fiscal, and (4) distance learning school (n=72, 30.4%). Interestingly, only nine
technology. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents selected Recruited teachers more
respondents (n = 161, 67.9%) reported the general aggressively from selected colleges and only two
operations practice of operating multi-grade respondents indicated Offered teacher induction
classrooms contributed to school sustainability in the program as a staffing practices that contributed to
district. Ninety-nine respondents (41.8%) indicated school sustainability in the district. In small, remote
that operating school facilities to serve community rural schools it is difficult to operate a teacher
functions positively impacted sustainability. Slightly induction program when the new teacher may be the
more than one in ten (n=28, 11.9%) reported that only professional educator in the school.
operating on a 4-day schedule contributed to school The fiscal practices that the highest numbers of
sustainability. respondents perceived contributed to school
The highest percentage of respondents (n=107, sustainability in districts were Sought bids and
45.1%) selected Made available special in-service comparison pricing for all purchases (n=93, 39.2%),
opportunities as a staffing practice that contributed to Formed consortium of school districts to leverage
7
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

resources (n=93, 39.2%), Cooperated with other 11.4%). Because the vast majority of the respondents
districts for specialized personnel (n=92, 38.8%), in the survey worked in elementary school districts, a
Increased student count (e.g., all-day kindergarten) lower selection of the practices particularly relevant
(n=88, 37.1%) and Hired teachers on low end of to high schools may be expected.
district pay scale (n=87, 36.7%).
With regard to distance learning technology Sustainability Reasons
practices that contribute to school sustainability in
district, 97 (40.9%) respondents indicated Delivered Using a rating scale of not important, somewhat
professional development opportunities for teachers important, important, very important, and extremely
and 90 respondents (38.0%) selected Provided important, school district personnel were asked to
enrichment experiences for students. A much lower rate the importance of eight factors in sustaining
percentage of respondents designated the following small rural public school(s) in the school district
as important technology practices that contribute to (Table 4). Based on the combined ratings of very and
sustainability: Provided citizens access to Internet extremely important, respondents indicated
(n=40, 16.9%), Offered courses to meet state- Importance of school to the community in educating
mandated curriculum requirements (n=39, 16.5%), children and/or youth almost twice as often (70%) as
Offered advanced placement courses for college any other reason. Lack of opposition in the district to
bound students (n=30, 12.7%), Offered school board closing the school was selected as the reason by the
training (n=30, 12.7%), and Delivered professional second highest percentage (38.8%) of school district
development opportunities for administrators (n=27, personnel.

Table 4

Rating of Sustainability Reasons by School District Personnel
Respondent Ratings (n = 183)
Very Extremely Combined
Important Important
Sustainability Reason No. % No. % No. %
1. Importance of school to the community in 91 47.9 42 22.1 133 70.0
educating children and/or youth (n =190)
2. Lack of opposition in the district to closing the 51 28.2 19 10.6 70 38.8
school (n =180)
3. Geography and road conditions are safer to travel 50 26.3 17 8.9 67 35.2
in winter than nearest out-of-district school (n =190)
4. Lack of external pressure (outside of district) to 45 25.0 16 8.9 61 33.9
close the school (n =180)
5. Travel distance is too far for students to attend 49 25.9 14 7.4 63 33.3
nearest out-of-district school (n =189)
6. Importance of school to the community in 43 22.6 15 7.9 58 31.6
meeting community development functions or needs
(n =190)
7. Key politicians representing the rural area 39 21.4 11 6.0 50 27.4
strongly support the school (n =182)
8. School operating expenditures basically same as 35 19.1 3 1.6 38 20.7
schools in other neighboring districts

School board chairs also rated the importance of essence, personnel who work for the school district
the eight reasons in sustaining the small rural public (e.g., teachers, administrators, others) perceive some
school(s) in the district (Table 5). Similar to school sustainability factors as much less important than do
district personnel, the factor school board chairs rated school board chairs. For example, 73.7 % of school
most highly was Importance of school to the board chairs indicated as extremely important the
community in educating children and/or youth. In factor Importance of school to the community in
contrast to district personnel, however, school board educating children and/or youth, compared to 22.1 %
chairs generally rated the sustainability impact of of school district personnel respondents. Given the
more factors as very or extremely important. In political nature of the school board, it is not
8
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

surprising that 41.5 % of school board chairs rural area strongly support the school, compared to
indicated as extremely important the sustainability only 6% of the school district personnel.
impact of the factor Key politicians representing the
Table 5

Rating of Sustainability Reasons by School Board Chairs
Respondent Ratings
Very Extremely Combined
Important Important
Sustainability Reason No. % No. % No. %
1. Importance of school to the community in educating children 11 19.3 42 73.7 53 93.0
and/or youth (n=57)
2. Key politicians representing the rural area strongly support 9 17.0 22 41.5 31 58.5
the school (n=53)
3. Geography and road conditions are safer to travel in winter 18 31.7 15 26.3 33 58.0
than nearest out-of-district school (n=57)
4. Importance of school to the community in meeting 19 33.4 10 17.5 29 50.9
community development functions or needs (n=57)
5. Travel distance is too far for students to attend nearest out-of- 12 21.1 17 29.8 29 50.9
district school (n=57)
6. Lack of opposition in the district to closing the school (n=52) 6 11.5 20 38.5 26 50.0
7. Lack of external pressure (outside of district) to close the 6 11.3 15 28.3 21 39.6
school (n=53)
8. School operating expenditures basically same as schools in 16 28.6 4 7.1 20 35.7
other neighboring districts (n=56)

Frontier School Supporters results clearly revealed that agriculture is the most
prevalent type of economic base in over four-fifths
Forty-nine individuals suggested by school (85.4%) of respondents’ districts, followed by ‘mixed
district personnel and board chairs as strong economies.’ Some mixed economies also included
supporters of the frontier community school agriculture. This means that almost 90 % of frontier
participated in the six focus group sessions. The 35 school districts exist primarily because the parents
cars or trucks that brought the 49 participants to these work in the agriculture sector of the economy,
sessions traveled 3,282 miles, a round trip on average producing important products such as beef, pork and
of 96.8 miles. Reflecting the long distances that wheat. One focus group participant described the
residents may need to travel to attend meetings in school as closely associated with the culture of
some rural areas of Montana served by frontier agriculture, as a way of life that was much different
schools, one husband and wife traveled a 240 mile than life in town, noting: “It’s a culture. That’s how
round trip to attend the session in their area. you’d say it, a heritage. Yeah, that’s a good way of
Session participants were asked to describe saying it.” Another participant describing the frontier
characteristics of their school, how parents and school noted.
community (or area) valued the school, the greatest I just think they’re definitely a necessity. I guess
challenge facing the school over the next three years, that’s how I would describe our [frontier] school.
and to recommend possible solutions to the It’s a good place. We need to have a good
challenge. Session participants were also asked to foundation for our kids, as far as keeping the
explain why the school had been sustained, how the family closer to home, because once we have to
school might be different in five years, and what shuttle the kids to town it’s a whole new world
supporters in the community of frontier schools must out there. And it puts a greater stress, I think, on
do if they want the school to remain sustained and the family unit.
viable to meet the needs of students.
This participant lived 38 miles from town, on an
Although survey results provided much data to
unpaved road, and explained that if the children had
inform work of the Montana Small Schools Alliance,
to go to the “town school” it would necessitate that
focus group results added critical information not
the mother and children live in town during the week
previously collected in past years by MSSA. Survey
9
Rural Educator 33(1) Fall 2011 Fall 2011

while the father lived and worked on the ranch. Such their children or children of others who attended the
a living situation would cause additional stress on the small school now live in the community and work as
family unit: “It’s a hardship financially. It’s a nurses, run their own business (e.g., outfitting) or are
hardship emotionally. It’s a great sacrifice.” ranchers. One participant explained.
Focus group participants offered numerous Not all children want to leave the area.
examples of how they, other parents/families, and They didn’t leave. They love this life,
community members value their schools. One they want to be in it, and they want to
participant noted. raise their kids in it. I think that comes
It’s a whole different life when they from enjoying the school that they grew
have to go to town. My kids would be up in and the type of lifestyle that they
gone, you know, I’d have to leave by were involved in. It is appealing to the
5:30 am, maybe 6 am if the roads were children of our children. Not all of
good to get them to the bus so they them, but a lot of them will come back
could ride 15 or 16 more miles. We and be the next generation of us.
would have to drive them 25 miles on a As one participant explained the importance of
dirt road to get them to the bus, or move connecting children to their community roots, many
to town. other participants nodded their heads in agreement:
Another participant commented on the In the country the small schools are
impact of school closure on the way of life, necessity because of the desire to keep
If [the school] closes down you lose all the children involved in ranching, in
the good people that are teaching there, agribusiness. Most of the small towns
and more than likely everything will are agricultural based areas. Parents
follow. Everything will close because desire to keep the kids involved and
the families will leave, so then there’s teach them along the way…. So by
nobody to support our store and the sending them to town, from
restaurant and businesses that are in kindergarten all the way up they’ve
town, which aren’t very many, but to us missed out on learning about ranching.
they are important. If we lose the They learn to work. And they’re
school, it’s 35 miles to [the next important to the community.
school]…. That is not an option. It All participants agreed that schools are part of
would be a 50-mile trip for her [the the communities, noting that “If we lose them, then
wife]. It would split the family. The we lose our communities." They strongly
husband would have to stay home and emphasized the importance of schools in sustaining
run the ranch, and she would have to go the rural ranching life-style.
to town [with the children]. While farming and ranching do not
Many focus group participants also saw require the number of Americans to be
the impact of having a school on the involved as in past decades, they do
community, for example, when hiring require some Americans who want to
employees for ranches and local businesses, work the land and be part of the rural
the presence of a school was an important lifestyle associated with ranching.
factor for potential applicants or sons or Removing the frontier schools would
daughters considering returning to the threaten the existence of agricultural
community. On sustaining the school, one production in Montana.
participant remarked.
I think a lot of people are very Discussion
supportive of having a school in the
rural area because if they have a family Small rural schools on the Montana “frontier”
that comes in to the area or a son that have numerous challenges, as do most schools in
comes back with a family, they want to America. But the challenges of frontier schools in
be able to have the school there for Montana appear unique to the agricultural way of life
their children. that has prevailed since establishment of the West.
Some participants wanted their children to go to a This finding is consistent with a national study of K-
college and university to learn about modern 12 unit schools (i.e., all grades in one school)
agricultural practices as preparation for coming back conducted more than a decade ago by Howley &
to work in the area or to take over the ranching Harmon (2000b). Their data revealed that K-12 unit
operation and provided numerous examples of how schools were usually located in agricultural regions
10